What does CNN stand for? – Business

The decisive question right at the beginning, because it really shows you the great crisis at the news group CNN and thus in US journalism – there are only wrong answers to it: How should someone who wants to report objectively and earn money with it has to deal with Donald Trump and, more broadly, the political and social divide in this country?

Chris Licht was fired last week after 13 months as CNN boss for giving the wrong, but ultimately foolish, answer. He had actually believed that he could be non-partisan and neutral in the current political climate – although he, who had previously produced the left-liberal late-night satirical show with the political sharp tongue Stephen Colbert, should have known: If you want to please everyone, please in the end none at all. Licht repeated the mistake that the station had already made in the 2016 presidential election campaign. His metaphor for news: We show people who like rain in the rain, and we show people who don’t like rain – but not saying that the sun is shining right now.

The highlight of this strategic oath of disclosure was the town hall with Trump four weeks ago: Licht had organized a boxing match, he had committed an admittedly talented and brave fighter. However, Kaitlan Collins only chose fair means against someone who is known to use unfair weapons, spit on opponents, deal low blows – and was applauded by the handpicked fan audience. It may have been entertaining for the bloodthirsty, but politically it was a farce – and strategic as well, because that one night brought in a few extra viewers (for that one night) but was devastating to the overall picture and future ratings. The question is: What on earth does CNN stand for?

Even at prime time, there are often no longer 350,000 people watching; i.e. one in 1000 Americans. CNN only takes part in public discourse when it is insulted and besmirched by Trump and his vassals – or because of its own scandals. What’s missing is the very thing the company has prided itself on ever since the TV channel launched in June 1980: relevance. Or, to put it bluntly: Who would really miss CNN at the moment? During the pandemic, the broadcaster has been a voice of sanity, during Trump’s presidency a stable rock in the wild Donald surf. Now the transmitter strays into insignificance.

Journalism is not meritocracy: the best don’t necessarily make the most money. The currency is attention, which is the time people give you, which you can monetize through subscription sales (newspaper, streaming, cable TV fees) and advertising revenue, and CNN bought that people’s time because they trusted the station to produce solid journalism.

It’s not like CNN is about to go bankrupt: Last year’s profit was $750 million, up from more than $1 billion since 2016. This year it’s expected to be more than $850 million. But then the presidential election campaign begins, and with it the chance to earn a decent amount of money through the right positioning – but also the danger of not getting enough time from the people because others are louder, more blatant, on both sides of the political and social spectrum by the way.

How are you supposed to report objectively in times of Trump and fake news?

There are three main problems for the company. The first, biggest: CNN may be a well-known brand worldwide, available in 80 million households in the USA. Since February 2022, however, as a company, it has only been one of 67 brands owned by the giant Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), which not only has to sell journalism, but also the superheroes of the DC entertainment universe, live sports, pay TV and Streaming portals such as Discovery+ and HBO. CNN is responsible for only five percent of the total group turnover.

Before that, under the charismatic Jeff Zucker, CNN was not just a brand, but almost a cult – which went well for a long time. After Zucker was kicked out, WBD boss David Zaslav installed his friend Licht as CNN boss without even considering a single other candidate. David Leavy now runs the day-to-day operations, supported by Virginia Moseley, Amy Entelis and Eric Sherling. Word has it that the search for a replacement for Licht could take months, and if there’s one thing that is known about Leavy, it’s this: he’s a longtime confidant of Zaslav’s.

Zucker had to leave in 2022 because of an office affair, and that leads to the second problem: Politics in the US is often an extremely dirty business. Those who report about it cannot afford to stain themselves. At CNN, Chef Zucker had to leave because of the affair; before that, Covid explainer Chris Cuomo for colluding with his brother, then-New York Governor Andrew; then star presenter and Trump nemesis Don Lemon for a derogatory remark about women over 50. Within a few months, the TV station lost all those who had sharpened its profile. Now the interim bosses should create a profile again – only: with whom? It is said that reporter Rahel Salomon and Phil Mattingly, previously a correspondent in the White House, are to be built into new stars. Given the ratings, the question remains: does anyone even want to be a CNN star when their own social media account can reach more people than the station?

This leads directly to the third problem: Zaslav and Licht stopped the CNN+ streaming project for cost reasons and booked it as a $200 million loss in 2022 – now Athan Stephanopoulos, brought in by Licht, is supposed to develop the digital strategy. The fight for attention is certainly not less in the streaming and social media area than in the cable news TV segment?

Zaslav, 63, is considered a hands-on manager with great attention to detail. He introduced himself to the WBD employees as a “problem solver” who wanted to know about problems as quickly as possible so that he could solve them as quickly as possible. Well then, Mister Zaslav!